Not at all, but highly subjective? Yes. One can fling the word around, but without a point of reference, its meaning can be almost anything!

One can take immoral to mean 1) not ascribing to a generally accepted moral code (religious or otherwise),2) expressly violating such a moral code, or 3) merely differing from a prospective moral code. Immoral is just contrary to being moral. What should be the question is how one chooses his/her basis for their particular morality.

If one lives in a totalitarian regime, are not the acts of the totalitarian moral? Those who disagree do so because they have a different viewpoint of what constitutes morality, do they not?

I wouldn't worry about inferring meaning in such a nebulous term as "moral" or "immoral" until one has sufficiently described or defined the rules under discussion.

I agree with making the existing public education better instead of pour money into higher eduction.

It was a question.

Ok, I get that... a quid pro quo... ok. So long as the kids can also opt out of the "benefit" without penalty..

LS, if I could provide a link or citation, I certainly would have. I was hoping that there might be someone here in The Gulch who might reply with something that resembled a confirmation or denial of 'what I remembered.'

As we say here in NC, "Thank you SO MUCH for your comment."

No, it's called value for value. If you want something, in this case education, you pay for it via work as a currency instead of money.

Remember kids can still pay and go to these schools just like always. If a child wants schooling and they cannot pay for it why not allow them to work. It's better than making it totally free.

Says who?

So, his 'free education' comes at the cost of conscription, or should we say, 'slavery'? :)

I'm not great at history, but I remember reading somewhere that, before "public schools" were 'invented,' schools were all pretty much "private schools," and not taxpayer-supported. That would argue for poor outcomes to have become a byproduct of government funding of education.

What if all those college students learn proper mathematics, including probability and statistics? The Lottery is a tax on bad mathematics. Will the cat be out of the bag?

No worry. For every student who learns that the only way to win the Lottery is not to play, there will still be a thousand others willing to pay $1000 to win $600. In my state it takes a lot of extra time to pay for gas when someone in front of me is busy deciding which lottery ticket to buy. There must be two dozen different choices.

I have no issue with saying it is inefficient, or that private companies and people should be able to have their own lotteries. I am also sure that other things could have been done with the money such as tax breaks , but I think this is a better thing that what most states are doing with their lotteries.

We also do not have to worry about things like bridges falling down, at least not state owned bridges, as the state has a most unusual thing these days, a balanced budget. Of course Obama was in Tennessee last week, so that might have unbalanced it. LOL

Ok will but you have to admit this is soo inefficient. The govt raises funds in a way it has made illegal for private companies to pursue. It then earmarks those funds for only certain categories of its budget. It then finds itself with a surplus so it proposes a new benefit for one group which profits one industry to the exclusion of the rest of the state. It then justifies all of this by saying the result is for the common good of the state. Meanwhile a bridge will topple because there werent enough dollars in the transportation budget, infrastructure being a primary function of govt.

The governor had an interview yesterday in which he gave more detail on his plan. He said those benefiting would be required to perform community service. He did not say how much, but that requirement will be there in his proposal. There may be value for value in this afterall. Time will tell. I think it's worth keeping an eye on to see how it goes.

Most often true. There is an update. The governor had an interview yesterday in which he gave more detail on his plan. He said those benefiting would be required to perform community service. He did not say how much, but that requirement will be there in his proposal. There may be value for value in this afterall. Time will tell.

(Disclaimer: I hold both an undergraduate degree as well as an MBA from a respected University.)

I think there is a deeper question that needs to be addressed to ALL in higher education:

Why has society deemed it necessary to get a four-year degree in order to be successful in today's world?

It seems to me to be more a barrier to entry to the middle class than a legitimately valuable tool. There are a huge number of jobs out there - especially in trades, auto repair, and construction - where an apprenticeship is vastly superior practical education in comparison to a four-year institution. I question the need for every high school graduate to obtain a four-year degree. How much true value is being derived from the system for the student?

Now one can quickly point out (and not without justification) that our primary educations have dropped in efficacy to the point that many high school graduates are barely passing. What is the point of sending students like that to college at all?

I had a friend who was from Germany and we discussed the disparity in the education systems. There, "high school" was over by age 16 and students would either move to a trade school for specific training or move on to university for extensive education in engineering, law, etc. At the time, I dismissed the system out of my own ignorance, but looking at it now, I wonder if there isn't some merit there. The only students even considered for "university" are the top students: B+ average or better. That being said, noone pays for their own education either, however.

I guess I look back at the late 1800's/early 1900's and the education systems in place then: they were run locally, age did not necessarily determine grade level, and results were everything. Teachers were paid by students' parents in most cases and held accountable to them. University was a major accomplishment and reserved only for those with needs for higher education pursuits. Training in trades was the prevalent form of job-related education.

I compare that to the modern era where K-6 is barely more than organized daycare and indoctrination and 7-12 isn't much better. Higher education is grossly expensive due to both subsidies and too much demand and has diverged from being learning-centered to being entertainment/sport-centered.

Does my MBA look impressive on my resume? Yup. Have I actually used it much in my position in IT? Eh. Most of the stuff covered in class specifically related to IT was either stuff I already knew (and the teachers knew it) or stuff that was outdated. To me, an IT trade school makes a lot of sense.

My brother also recently graduated with a degree in psychology - but works as a warehouse tech. Without a doctorate, about the closest employment in his field is that of a social worker - a thankless job that makes less than he makes now but without the fun of driving a forklift (his words)!

So I have to question the efficacy and value of the whole higher education system. To me, there is a glut of educated fools with degrees that mean nothing. I can't really celebrate "job requirement inflation"! (yes, please help me come up with a better term)